Feb 2009 13

Down at the site office waiting for Darling's blank cheque

We've blogged PFI many times (start here and see all previous posts gathered here). In theory, it could be a good deal for taxpayers, because instead of trying to build and maintain hospitals and schools itself, the government gets private sector specialists to compete for the job. Not only should the price be lower, but the risks of things like project overspend are transferred to specialist operators who are better equipped to manage them. Everybody should win by eliminating waste and inefficiency.

In the real world, things have turned out rather differently. Because Mr Brown has used PFI primarily as a means of borrowing off-balance sheet, local authorities and NHS trusts have been under immense pressure to fund their capital projects via PFI. As a result, some pretty shocking deals have been done (see many previous blogs eg here). The taxpayer has still ended up carrying the debt, but overpaying substantially relative to traditional gilts funded projects.

Now the financial meltdown has pitched this entire PFI charade into the flames.

The pricey bank finance on which PFI depends has dried up, and projects worth billions have stalled. These include the £5bn project to widen the M25, the £1.2bn project to rebuild or refurbish Birmingham's secondary schools, and some unknown hundreds of millions to build the 2012 athletes' village.

This is especially unfortunate since Brown and Darling have promised to accelerate public investment programmes to mitigate the economic downturn. So action is imminent:

"A multibillion-pound rescue of building programmes involving schools, hospitals and motorways that are threatened by a lack of private finance is to be announced by the Treasury within days, The Times has learnt. The Chancellor is expected to guarantee bridging finance to enable public sector schemes being built under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) to go ahead if they are already in the pipeline."

Now, given our economic predicament, even small government supporters can see the attraction of cracking on with planned public investment programmes. But taxpayers should be very concerned about this PFI rescue.

Because given everything we know, having a panicky Mr Darling rush into the PFI site office with yet another book of blank cheques means only one thing – we are going to get skinned.

The blunt truth is that the Simple Shopper is incapable of cutting us a good deal, even when he's holding all the cards. We can see that right now with the unfolding crisis on the 2012 Olympics project: costs are still spiralling out of control despite the fact that construction contractors are facing their biggest downturn in living memory. The Shopper is under strict orders to get the work done whatever the cost, and the contractors know it.

So here's yet another item for George Osborne's list when he likely takes the controls next year. He must order a full drains-up on PFI, looking to cut back drastically. Enron balance sheet fiddles are out. Worst-of-both-worlds compromises between public services and private suppliers must go.

PS Talking of public sector buyers being schmoozed and seduced by raw meat-eaters from the private sector, what are we to make of our freeloading mandarins? The winner of this year's Corporate Boonie Award is Sir Brian Bender, now Permanent Secretary at BERR, but previously head of Defra and the man who presided over the Rural Payments Agency fiasco (the Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee pronounced itself "astonished" he hadn't been dismissed then - see this blog). Bender accepted corporate hospitality on 52 separate occasions during 2007 – once a week. Does that pass the smell test? Sure, you can argue – as Matthew Parris did this morning – that being treated to breakfast by GKN is hardly a boonie. But what about being taken to Wimbledon – with your partner? Or the Chelsea Flower Show, various exhibitions, concerts and dinners, again all with your partner? The truth is it stinks. Which is why some private sector firms, and in fairness, some public sector bodies, ban the acceptance of such stuff altogether. Something else George Osborne must look at. Many feel we should impose a blanket ban right across the public sector – any hospitality beyond the occasional in-house working lunch and unaccompanied must-attend very boring industry dinners should be a sacking offence.

Related Posts

  • Steve Robson

    and the lesson to everyone is, be careful what you wish for.
    as you say, a good idea, a good RIGHT WING idea, entirely consistent with your “private sector always right, public sector always wrong” philosophy, but oh dear, its gone wrong. Quick, better find a way to blame our enemies in the public sector and the left.
    be careful what you wish for…

  • Steve Robson

    and if you really want to be fair (not your usual approach), you should revise:
    Which is why some private sector firms, and in fairness, some public sector bodies, ban the acceptance of such stuff altogether
    to
    Which is why almost all public sector bodies though almost no private sector firms ban the acceptance of such stuff altogether
    When I go to the test match with my paid-for ticket and struggle through the legions of private sector hospitality recipients paying no attention to the cricket, I wonder what corruption is afoot and reflect on how lucky we are that most public servants do not take this hospitality and even the TPA would struggle to issue one of their rubblish reports showing that the reverse is really true (in the way they don’t notice bankers earning £30million per year but crucify public sector staff earning £100K). Even the TPA would notice the sheer scale of private sector hospitality, all paid for ultimately by the consumer, and how rare it is in the public sector beyong a few mandarins.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/mikedenham Mike Denham

    Hi Steve
    I think PFI is a good idea that’s been pushed far too hard. Its original purpose has been subverted by Brown’s pressure to move borrowing off balance sheet, Enron-style – see many previous blogs.
    Its failures also underline the public sector’s weaknesses in negotiating and managing commercial contracts, which have been well documented in many NAO/PAC reports.
    Real lesson? Halfway houses between public and private sector provision are prone to give taxpayers the worst of both worlds. Wherever possible – eg with schools – it would be much better to make the provider of the end-service directly accountable to the end-customer, not to some intermediating public body.
    And on the question of corporate hospitality, as a taxpayer, I’m really not too concerned with whether M&S allows its buyers to accept it – that’s a problem for M&S shareholders, because if they load their prices too much I’ll buy my suits at Asda.
    But I am concerned about the Cabinet Sec and his wife being taken to Opera by BP. We need a clearcut rule, and the rule should be No.

  • Steve Robson

    Well you should be concerned as a customer rather than a shareholder because they pretty much all engage in an enormous amount of corporate hospitality and its loaded onto all prices, so you really have no choice but to pay for it at all. In fact you also pay for it as a taxpayer as well as a consumer because many of them (eg. – Pinsents – a big PFI player were in a box every day of the Oval Test Match) are big suppliers to the public sector and load it into their prices there.
    We all pay in the end and I genuinely don’t understand this private sector can do no wrong philosophy of the TPA; it is just so ideological and misguided and means you will ultimately fail to get lower taxes.
    I agree about contracting to some extent, the public sector needs to get much better, though devolving it to unit level (eg a school) will achieve the opposite. Council’s probably need to get more expertise in, but you will then either criticise that as consultancy spend or paying too many people £50K+. So heads you win, tails you win because you can criticise either way and that is your main raison d’etre.

  • Call me Dave

    It’s clear to me pfi has been hugely expensive for the tax payer. Scottish Parliament building was a great example. Budgeted at £40m it end up costing over £400m. Private sector contactors bank balances were nearly as big as the public sector numpties running the project.

  • Howard Thomas

    Can anybody explain just how a project costed at £40 million can end up costing 10 times that much.
    Surely once your contractor has given the quote then they have to be held to it(barring extras and upgrades)or is this not the case when it comes to public money?
    If the contactor got it wrong—then tuff–learn from it!!

  • Howard Thomas

    It is very worrying when the finance for PFI deals is drying up–after all isn’t this guaranteed income for the next 25-30 years from the government?!
    Perhaps in our current economic climate there is a chance that the government will ‘go bust’ and the PFI contractor could end up not getting paid.
    It is apparantly quite possible(possibly even common) to be able to get insurance on government guilts/bonds in case you don’t get your money back.
    Is this connected?
    worrying times indeed
    Howard Thomas Common sense party

  • http://www.michelleboudreau.net Debt Rescue

    The steps should be taken by government to minimizes taxes , as they give negative impacts to businesses in this time of high recessions .